Talk:League of the South

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the League of the South article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Discussion

I just want to say, not all southerners are racist. I am pro-confederate yet I have several friends of varying ethnicities. So, are you gonna call me racist? I beleive secession is a God given right. If you want to argue, so be it. GOD SAVE THE SOUTH! crazyfurf

I checked League Core Beliefs Statement, plus http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php?module=daily_archive, http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php?module=Topics&func=view, and http://leagueofthesouth.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=FAQ&file=index. Nowhere did I see anything to support :

It attempts to rescue the concept of Southern heritage and the Confederate legacy from white supremacists and hate groups who have sometimes appropriated its symbols but have little or no...'
or
...vocal denunciations of hate groups..."

I've made a good faith attempt to find this information. It is incumbent on the eidtors making the assertion to provide the source. Thanks, -Willmcw 01:18, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

YOU ARE NOT USING THE OFFICIAL PAGE. FURTHERMORE, YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE ORGANIZATION SO YOU HAVE NO GROUNDS TO SPEAK ABOUT THE BELIEFS OF ITS MEMBERS.

Please share with us the URL of the "official page" that contains the information you posted. Whether I am a member or not is irrelevant. The only material that belongs in this article is information that can be verified by any Wikipedia editor. Also, please refrain from making personal attacks. Civility is a Wikipedia requirement, not just a Southern ideal. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:43, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
Well, ignoring the above shouter, what about this: http://leagueofthesouth.net/static/homepage/intro_articles/csa-flags.html ? Not exactly vociferous, I'll grant. I wonder how well-documented other statements in the article are, such as the part where it talks about slavery. - Nat Krause 13:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. However it seems to say the opposite. It castigates those who associate the Confederate flag with racism, rather than castigating racists for using the flag.
It has been the experience of the League of the South that those who strive to re-cast the Confederate flag as solely a "racist symbol" are inevitably motivated either by historical ignorance or by pure, unadulterated malice towards the South, its symbols, its heritage and its people. We of the League of the South steadfastly reject the crass bigotry that drives this ceaseless campaign of cultural genocide against the revered Anglo-Celtic symbols of Dixie. We rightly resent and resist the politically correct fascism that demands that we acquiesce in the destruction of our own culture. '
Reading that makes the assertion in the article appear to be the opposite of the LS's real stand. So, rather than delete it, I'll fix it. Cheers, -Willmcw 16:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
It says both. It also says:
While it is true that some have misused this banner for ignoble purposes, the same can be said of the U.S. flag and the Christian cross, yet no one will seriously argue that they are hate symbols simply because racial extremists use them from time to time. If fairness will allow us to acknowledge that those symbols have meanings that transcend their use by racial bigots, then the same courtesy must be extended to the premier symbol of the Southland, the Confederate flag.
Here, they describe racists using the flag as "ignoble" and as "racial bigots". - Nat Krause 02:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
If that is what they wrote then that is what we should say. Thanks for finding that. -Willmcw 03:54, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further right than Edmund Burke and further left than Karl Marx?

What does this mean?

It means they've never read Burke OR Marx. --Michael K. Smith 19:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite planned

Hello. I'm here to discuss a planned rewrite of this page. It would be mainly an expansion, breaking the main text into sections (History, Goals and beliefs, Controversy) and adding more information to those sections. This rewrite will cause most of the original text to be lost, so I won't change anything prematurely. If there are major objections to this rewrite, I'd like to hear them. For fairness' sake I should say that I'm new to Wikipedia; this will be my first major project. However, I am very aware of NPOV and will strive to use it. Thanks, all! Ericka Dawn 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes articles need rewrites. An important policy is Wikipedia:verifiability, and its companion guideline is Wikipedia:reliable sources. Those require that we have a source for everything we add. They way that I put it together is: "Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view". So I suggest that a good way to start would be to compile the sources you intend to summarize. Cheers, -Will Beback 19:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Oops. So, I was working on the article in my word processor, but when I was checking out some formatting on the site I accidentally hit "save" instead of "preview"...I guess it's up now. Not as complete as I had planned, but I think it's an improvement. Comments? Ericka Dawn 22:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Overall it looks good. It is sympathetic, by way of providing more of the subject's agenda, but we have to fully describe their mission and goals from all perspectives, especially their own. So my comment is that we should avoid using long quotations or other source material. The more we can summarize the better. Otherwise, it's a nice job. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Poverty Law Center - SPLC

The entire article appears to be based off of information (no matter how inaccurate) from the SPLC. Most references throughout article are linked to the SPLC website. It is common knowledge that the LoS and the SPLC have a continuing fued (including the LoS picketing the SPLC headquarters), therefore it seems very un-encyclopedic to use the SPLC as the primary source of information. Using this information makes the entire article very POV, even if not intended to be by the person using the info. I would suggest that the article be re-writen using only non-POV sources. J.B. 04/04/2006

To me the article strikes a decent balance between both sides of this issue. The problem, though, is that the references to this article either come from the League's website or the SPLC. What I'd like to see are more references and information from third-party sources. This doesn't mean to take away the references and info that is there but add more info from sources that aren't involved in either side of this article's topic.--Alabamaboy 21:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Rewrite

I have re-written the article, for bias, style, sourcing and readability. Though this article now has fewer blatant problems, it is essentially just describes the content of a League position paper as well as a SPLC article. The League should be seen in a broader context of neo-confederate movements, its influence should be discussed, and material from ""The US Civil War as a Theological War: Confederate Christian Nationalism and the League of the South", should be included. (It goes without saying that this paper should be discussed in a POV-less fashion). Thus, I've left an expand tag on the article because it needs work. --Zantastik talk 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's better. What is the reason for the link to the Military Order of the Stars and Bars, other than that both are interested in the history of the Confederacy? Is there some overlap in the membership of these two groups not apparent from the article? Also, I question the South's relationship to a "list of not fully sovereign nations". Unlike, say, British Overseas Territories, some of which have many citizens desirous of fuller or complete sovereignty, I would say that only a tiny minority of Southerners truly see the South as a sovereign nation being wrongfully occupied and governed by foreigners. While it is important to acknowledge these folks and cover their activities, it is also important to note that they hold a minority viewpoint, just as sedevacantists are not mainstream in the Catholic church, nor are "Predestinarian Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit" Baptists a predominant group of Baptists. Rlquall 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Christian

As it stands now, the above term, which is used in the article, is just a redirect to Christian right. Is this really appropriate? While this group has some decidedly right-wing ideas and is definitely aimed at Trinitarian Protestants, is it really part of any larger agenda such as the Christian Right? Judging from its own materials, it seems fairly unconcerned with the rest of the U.S., as they are in its view just a group of occupying foreigners, whereas the Falwells and Robertsons of the world are interested in converting everyone over to their viewpoint and hence saving them (again, in their view). Comments? Rlquall 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As a political group, I don't think we can ignore the political aspect of the league's religious views, which are included prominently in their platform. Though they may differ from many others in the Christian Right on specifics of theology or politics, I think that it is a reasonable link. Do you know of a better article for the link? -Will Beback 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Controversy Section amended

I have amended the controversy section by underlining what the footnotes suggest: that alligations are those of the SPLC's report "A League of Their Own". The SPLC is not exactly an unbiased source. Its claims are not the truth. To present these claims as true is POV. 71.71.118.255 00:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Barry

Steve Barry, mentioned in the Controversy section, was indeed reported to be a member of the National Alliance. He was listed as an advisor to the NC League's Raleigh Chapter. When the NC League's state chairman found this out, he kicked out the Raleigh Chapter's president, and Barry's advisory status and membership came to an end. The NAACP expelled a chapter president who made anti-Semitic remarks a few years back, which is just one example of how every organization gets its share of undesirables. The League also screens applicates and weeds out bad eggs: anti-Semites, racists and racialists, anti-Catholics, etc. 71.71.118.255 00:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any sources for this? -Will Beback 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The source is the NC Chairman in his correspondence to me upon my asking. His blog: http://www.leagueofthesouth.net/rebellion/ He added in that correspondence that as far as he can tell, Steve Barry was never a member of the League. It's worth asking, What was the SPLC's sources for its information on Barry's relation to the League? 71.71.118.255 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't require that our sources reveal their sources. We do require more than a personal, undisclosed correspondence as a source. That type of sourcing is prohibited by WP:NOR and WP:V. If he has published his views then we could quote him on it. I can't find any mention of the matter on his blog. -Will Beback 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My information on Barry and the League has two characteristics: 1. It is indeed unpublished. For that very reason, I didn't put it in the article. 2. It's true. 71.71.118.255 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPLC allegations

I have removed several statements in the article which were "supported" solely by statements of the SPLC. In context, the SPLC does not meet criterion for adequate sources. WP:RS; WP:RS#Exceptional Claims; WP:V; WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. If such accusations are to be included in this article, they must be supported by mainstream sources, not based merely on the accusations of a radical and politically charged activist group. Think about it this way -- if the SPLC can be the sole critic of the LoS, then STORMFRONT can be the sole critic of the SPLC. I'm sure all of you get the point. Furthermore, the SPLC does have a documented reliability/credibility problem. Therefore, use of the SPLC as a source is problematic on those grounds as well. Additionally, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. WP:RS#Exceptional Claims. The prior version of the article failed to meet any of these three aspects of Wiki policy. I am not stating that criticism cannot be included in this article. However, I am saying that this criticism must be obtained from reliable and verifiable sources, and presented in a balanced and NPOV manner. --Fix Bayonets! 06:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The claims are not exceptional, and are consistent with allegations from othre sources. Stormfront would never be considered a reliable source for anything because it is a forum. I'd be willing to compromise by placing the SPLC criticisms in one section, much as has been done with the critisms of SPLC itself in the "SPLC" article. -Will Beback 20:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Verklempt's most recent edits resolve the issue in a satisfactory manner.--Fix Bayonets! 12:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's progress, but some useful information, like membership numbers, has been lost. I'll make a section for SPLC reporting when I get a chance. -Will Beback 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defence of use of SPLC

Let's take a look at what Fix Bayonets! believes to be the SPLC's "exceptional claims" that (s)he has taken it upon him/herself to remove.

Are the claims taken from SPLC sources really all that exceptional for a group like LOTS? (and this considering that the latter has not specifically disagreed with them -- except the racism allegation)

1. That some consider the organisation racist. Mind you, not that the organisation is racist, but that some consider it to be. This is not an "exceptional claim". Neo-confederate groups are often accused of racism. The article does not state that this accusation is correct, simply that it is leveled at the LOTS.

It has attracted some controversy because of its alleged racism,[1] and its leadership of the so-called Neo-Confederate movement.

2.Non controversial statements about league membership numbers. Whether one likes the SPLC or not, given the utter paucity of information the League has chosen to render public regarding its membership, the SPLC's numbers are the best thing we've got. Certainly, if the LOTS debated these stats (and Fleming and Mc Whiney leaving) then this would need to be noted, but they have not (publically) done so. Thus, there's no reason for removing this information.

The latter's book Cracker Culture, has been called "a neo-confederate Bible."[citation needed] In 1998, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated the League's membership at 4,000; in 2000, it had grown to 9,000 members according to the SPLC.[2] Since then, again according to the SPLC, its membership has been in decline, and high-profile figures like Fleming and McWhiney have left the League. [3]

3. Every single criticism of the League and a quote from Hill calling universal human rights an "evil genie". Such a removal is a clear violation of NPOV. Just because one doesn't like a group doesn't mean that stripping away any discussion of criticism of it are acceptable. After all, even our articles on the least-controversial groups have criticism sections -- NPOV requires this. The SPLC has indeeed been criticised by some. Yet this does not mean that it simply cannot be cited.

As for Hill's quote, it really isn't that surprising (or exceptional, if you prefer), given the man's philosophy. Here's a longer discussion thereof. from the acursed SPLC

The very idea [of equality], Hill and others say, is "Jacobin," referring to a particularly bloody faction during the French Revolution. Hill also suggests that citizens need not be given equal rights: "While the teachings of Holy Scripture speak of a civil society composed of superiors, equals and inferiors, each protected in their legal privileges, Jacobin social theory posits that no adult can be justly denied any privilege due another, except perhaps as punishment for ... a crime." Sadly, Hill writes, most Christian Southerners have fallen prey to this "fatal heresy" of egalitarianism. "[T]he evil genie of universal 'human rights,' once loosed from its bottle, can never be restrained," he writes, "because rights for women, racial and ethnic minorities, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc., can be manufactured easily."

Hill's group believes in the particular over the universal, the ethnic/national group over humanity, tradition over pure reason, and so on. When one opposes Enlightenment principles, it's hardly surprising that he or she would also oppose the idea of universal human rights or equality. Such opposition goes way back -- from Burke and Herder to Meinecke, Renan, Maurras, etc. That another anti-Enlightenment thinker in this tradition would have similar views is hardly surprising.

Until Hill disowns these remarks attributed to him, then blanking them is simply POV.

I have re-inserted the blanked text. It should not be re-blanked absent a consensus to do so. Let's work together to make this article as NPOV as possible, full of praise and criticism of the LOTS, based on its own material and that of its opponents. --Zantastik talk 18:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Zantastik's thorough response is convincing. I find it hard to believe that one could effectively argue a counterpoint. I am troubled, however, by Fix Bayonets' pattern of editing, demonstrated in other articles as well, that always seems to result in the excision of anything written by the SPLC or about the SPLC from articles. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at Fixbayonets edits to the SPLC article.Verklempt 20:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] SPLC comment unacceptable

I quote Wikipedia Administrator SlimVirgin:

"When dealing with published sources not regarded as reputable enough to be used as sources of information on other people, we may nevertheless use them as sources of information on themselves if they have a Wikipedia page, but even then we proceed with caution. So for example, Stormfront may be used as a source if we want to know what Stormfront says about itself in the article about that group, but we don't use Stormfront as a source of information on Jews. We also don't repeat its views about Jews in the Stormfront article unless we're carefully selecting certain passages to illustrate what kind of organization it is. But we don't allow the Stormfront article to become a platform for Stormfront propaganda. Wikipedia is not an extension of other people's websites."

As can be seen, the above remarks are in context and quite applicable to the subject-matter dispute regarding the Wikipedia LoS article. The SPLC is not a reliable source. It is verified that the SPLC invents news and hides information which might otherwise destroy the credibility of the SPLC’s propaganda. If SPLC activists wish to criticize the LoS, they must furnish mainstream sources.

I quote WP:RS#Exceptional Claims:

"Exceptional claims [are claims which contain]:
Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues."

Therefore, any inclusion of SPLC material as a means of asserting spurious claims is in breach of Wikipedia policy and is therefore unacceptable. Because of the afore-stated fact, I reverted attempts to re-insert such material.--Black Flag 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The SlimVirgin quote relates to Stormfront, not the SPLC. I'd also point out again, as I have elsewhere in response to the same quote, that quotes by administrators are not Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Using them as such is actually contrary to the spirit of Wiki, which works by consensus, not administrative proclamation. Actually, I might invite SlimVirgin to comment here on the use of her quote. Since the quote has absolutely nothing to do with the SPLC, however, your use of it is even more mystifying.
Zantastik's well-reasoned argument in the subsection above this one points out just how "exceptional" the claims being cited to the SPLC are. Your argument fails reasonable scrutiny. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I had assumed that as one in possession of a "J.D.", you were capable of applying SlimVirgin's quote in broader context, much like an attorney does with caselaw. Your protestations are sophomoric and fail reasonable scrutiny. --Black Flag 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko, stop being obtuse. that quote came from the PETA talkpage which isn't about stormfront either.L0b0t 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Black Flag did not address my arguments. It is not exceptional to claim that some consider a neo-confederate organisation racist. This may be true, it may be false, but such a charge is common, not "exceptional". While the article should never take sides in a dispute between LOTS supporters and detractors, it should state that opponents of the organisation consider it racist. Would SlimVirgin see her quote as being mis-applied? I am almost certain that she would, and she should be asked. Black Flag, your remark about Jersyko's intellectual faculties border on a violation of WP:NPA.
    Furthermore, to suggest that the SPLC is on par with a holocaust denial website is utterly baseless. Besides, let's take a look at these "exceptional" claims that I took from the SPLC (discussed in detail above):
    1. That some consider the group racist
    2. Non controversial statements about league membership numbers.
    3. A non controversial quote of Hill, one that Hill himself does not dispute or disown.
    Your blanking all information critical of LOTS, without even addressign the specifics of these supposedly "exceptional" claims demonstrates bad faith. Address my remarks before you take it upon yourself to remove all criticism of LOTS -- a violation of WP:NPOV --Zantastik talk 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
If you will re-read my comments, I did not challenge "Jersyko's intellectual faculties," as you allege. To the contrary, I am counting on the Jersyko's use of intellectual faculties, and rejection of bias and POV. In response to Jersyko's protestations that my interpretation of Wiki policy was 'unreasonable', I stated that it was my opinion that such protestations were sophomoric. Obviously, other editors agree with my interpretation of Wiki policy.--Black Flag 19:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I quote WP:RS#Exceptional Claims:
"Exceptional claims [are claims which contain]:
Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues."
You [Zantastik] do not seem to grasp the above concept. The SPLC's accusations of the LoS are exceptional claims, unless such claims are "covered by reputable news media". If circumsatnces exist in which such accusations HAVE been "covered by reputable news media," then such accusations can be SOURCED DIRECTLY to such "reputable news media."--Black Flag 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You're quoting a guideline. That's a great first step. But in every conversation we've ever had, you've never moved beyond reproducing guidelines and policy to actually applying them. Zantastik isn't asking for the "exceptional claims" portion of WP:RS, he's asking how the hell it could possibly apply to the three claims he's mentioned. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zantasik's list

In re: Zantasik's list:

1)The LoS " organisation is racist". I do not need to produce Joseph Pulitzer or William Randolph Hearst to establish the fact that such an allegation is an "exceptional claim." (Again, unless such claim is supported by "reputable news media," then such accusations should not be included. IF such claims CAN BE supported by "reputable news media," then they should be SOURCED DIRECTLY to such "reputable news media.")
2)LoS membership numbers (Zantastik believes the source of such numbers should derive exclusively FROM THE SPLC).
3)SPLC allegations as sole and exclusive source of criticism against LoS. I do not need to produce Jimbo Wales to establish the fact that the SPLC cannot be the source of criticism in this present case, for the reasons set-forth above. I suggest that your posturing in this matter is further evidence of bias and POV pushing.

If the SPLC can be the sole source of accusations against the LoS, then Aryan Nations, Stormfront, National Alliance, National Vanguard, or anyone else we might care to name can tbe the sole and exclusive critic of the SPLC. Obviously, either scenerio is unacceptable to Wikipedia. That is what I believe SlimVirgin was, in essence, stating.--Black Flag 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Try looking at Zantastik's actual words instead of your interpretation of his words, for goodness sake. For instance, he says "some consider the group racist" while you say "LoS organization is racist". And, once again, you haven't said how you think the membership numbers or the Hill quote are "exceptional". · j e r s y k o talk · 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Try reading more carefully.--Black Flag 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, that response is incomprehensible. I'm starting an Rfc. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc

Do the following selections from the article adhere to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence? Is it acceptable to link to Southern Poverty Law Center as a source in each instance?

  1. "It [the LotS] has attracted some controversy because of its alleged racism and its leadership of the so-called Neo-Confederate movement.[1]"
  2. "In 1998, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated the League's membership at 4,000; in 2000, it had grown to 9,000 members according to the SPLC.[2] Since then, again according to the SPLC, its membership has been in decline, and high-profile figures like Fleming and McWhiney have left the League.SPLC website"
  3. "The League of the South has been attacked as racist,[3] a charge the League denies.[4] Critics, most notably the Southern Poverty Law Center, argue that it seeks to create a theocracy.[5]
  4. J. Michael Hill, the League's president, has called slavery a "God-ordained institution" and opposes interracial marriage. Hill opposes "universal 'human rights", calling it an "evil genie", impossible to put back in the bottle, since "rights for women, racial and ethnic minorities, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc., can be manufactured easily."[6] Jack Kershaw, a board member, has said "somebody needs to say a good word for slavery. Where in the world are the Negroes better off today than in America?"[7] The SPLC has noted that some prominent members of the League are members of racist and neo-Nazi groups. For instance, the North Carolina branch of the League has Steven Barry, who is a member of the neo-Nazi National Alliance, as an "advisor".[8]

Some editors have argued that each of these claims is "exceptional", thus they must be sourced to multiple, independent reliable sources per the guideline. They argue that the SPLC is not a reliable source, or at least not reliable enough to support these exceptional claims alone. They argue that these claims should be removed from the article if and until they are referenced better.

Some editors have argued that the SPLC is a reliable soruce, and that (1) it is unexceptional (and uncontroversial) that some groups have labelled the LotS "racist", as the SPLC has done so in published reports, (2) membership numbers are unexceptional and the SPLC is the only source of information on this point as LotS doesn't provide numbers, and (3) the quotes by LotS members are sourced to the SPLC and have not been disputed by the alleged speakers. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from L0b0t

Item #1 Unless you can find another source, I think the local paper would be a good place to start, This line should be changed to "has been accused by the SPLC of racism and leadership of the neoconfed movt." Without another source the SPLC is the only one making that claim. Provide any LOTS rebuttal.

Item #2 Where is SPLC getting their figures from? Check with LOTS to see if they publish their membership figures, if they do, verify the numbers. If they do not publish that data then ammend the statement to reflect that and list the source of the SPLC's data. If SPLC does not cite a source then leave the statement out.

Item #3 This statement is just statement #1 rephrased. It's redundant and not needed.

Item #4 This gets to the heart of the problem. Is the SPLC acceptable WP:RS? I feel that they are not, as WP:RS states---

Partisan and extremist websites The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources.

and WP:V clearly states--

Sources of dubious reliability In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

The SPLC is not a newspaper publisher with a well respected tradition for editorial accumen. They are a partisan lawsuit mill that raises a great deal of its funding through fear-mongering and devisive race-baiting. The idea that an organization funded by keeping its base gnashing their teeth at the thought of racists and bigots lurking behind every shrub is not too partisan to be the sole source in an encyclopedia article about an organization of which they are the sole critic is just ludicrous. The SPLC is a fine source for the SPLC's opinion of LOTS, but they can not be used as a source for something LOTS did or said. Finding a reputable 3rd party source is not an unusual request and should not be a problem if as some editors claim this information is well known. L0b0t 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Question: Let me start with the easiest (or hardest) case. According to the SPLC, J. Michael Hill called slavery a "God ordained institution" on a private mail list. That alarms me a little, both under the[[exceptional evidence guideline and WP:BLP. I think particularly given WP:BLP, we need to have some comfort level before we start making factual allegations like that. I'm willing to consider the possibility that the Southern Poverty Law Center might display that kind of reliability, but the current wikipedia page about the SPLC doesn't tell me much about its reliability -- what kind of fact checking does it claim to do, and what's its track record on claims like that? Thanks, TheronJ 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't really relevant to reliable source or exceptional claims, but the statement: "Critics, most notably the Southern Poverty Law Center, argue that it seeks to create a theocracy.[9]" simply fails WP:V. Nothing in the SPLC article offered as a source establishes the existence of other critics, whether or not those other critics are less notable than the SPLC. TheronJ 20:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a trivial matter to find quotes from the LoS president that support the notion that the LoS advocates a religion-based government. You don't need the SPLC to substantiate that observation. Several such quotes have been offered in edits and discussion.Verklempt 02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Zantastik

The SPLC claims are not exceptional, especially if one examines them in light of some of Hill's other remarks. He "has also advocated the ideology of kinism, and would outlaw racial intermarriage and non-white immigration, expel all “aliens” (including Jews and Arabs) and limit the right to vote to white landowning males over the age of twenty-one." (See here. The claims the SPLC makes about him and LOTS are far more banal. See my argument above --Zantastik talk 19:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If these claims are so common, then you should be able to easily find references in the mainstream press and we don't need to cite the SPLC as a source. Problem solved. L0b0t 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that these claims are "common". What I am suggesting is that when Hill himself calls for banning inter-racial marriage, non-white immigration and expelling Jews and Arabs from the American Southeast, then it's hardly an "exceptional claim" to say that he called human rights an "evil genie". Why not use sources like the Washington Post instead of the SPLC? Well, the mainstream press just doesn't write about tiny, far-right or left groups. But then again, these claims just aren't exceptional, in light of Hill's other remarks. --Zantastik talk 22:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
These are the critical points of contention here, yet the only response so far to them is that "yes, the claims are exceptional" (without much supporting reasoning) and "then we should find other sources" (which presumes that the sources we have aren't adequate and that the claims made are exceptional, requiring multiple sources). These are the arguments that need to be addressed. If they aren't there's absolutely no reason not to include at least some (though perhaps not all) of the information in the article. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPLC "reliability"

"A federal commission and the Charlotte Observer concluded that in 1996 the SPLC had "misinformed the media" and fabricated stories that black church burnings were the work of the Ku Klux Klan and other conspirators of like mind.[2] The USA Today verified and collaberated the Charlotte Observer story, commenting further that the SPLC purposefully hid the fact that some of the fires "were set by a black man."[3] Stephen Bright of the "Southern Center for Human Rights" declared that Dees "is a fraud who has milked a lot of very wonderful well-intentioned people. If it's got headlines, Morris is there."[3] The Cleveland Scene has reported that the SPLC has often woefully exaggerated its reports or reported stories that were disingenuous.[4] The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation verified and collaborated the Cleveland Scene report.[4]"

Horowitz further alleges on his Discover the Networks (DTN) website that the SPLC's "Teaching Tolerance" program is "far from a good-faith effort to instruct schoolchildren in the merits of tolerance." According to DSN, the program is used to promote a left-wing political agenda and "spread the virtues of political correctness" among children and teachers. As an example of this agenda, DSN points to a cover story from a "Teaching Tolerance" publication aimed at students that claimed the popular The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy was "little more than a glorified vision of white patriarchy," complained its actors were "whiter than white," and denounced its themes as "Eurocentric." [19]

SPLC reliability and Unreliable
Quite revealing. --Black Flag 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Horowitz is as extreme or more extreme that the SPLC. 1996 was ten years ago. All sources, even the NY Times, make mistakes. A few mistakes a decade ago do not render a source unreliable. Please do not delete material without getting a consensus. -Will Beback 01:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1) "A few mistakes"?????????????? Fabricating stories is not "a few mistakes." Stating that an acclaimed childrens' movie is "a glorified vision of white patriarchy" is not indicitive of rational reporting. Being accused of FRAUD by your peers is not insignificant. I guess you consider the Charlotte Observer, USA Today, Stephen Bright, The Cleveland Scene, and The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation to be "more extreme than the SPLC," too!
2) And we ask editors not to INCLUDE accusations derived solely from a leftist political activist group such as the SPLC. Those type of accusations must be sourced from reliable sources, and be verifiable. Exceptional claims (racism, etc.) must be "supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources". I can't seem to find a Wikipedia policy that states that certain editors are exempt from the above Wikipedia guidelines and policy.--Fix Bayonets! 08:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought thia was still an active RfC. Please stop inserting the SPLC's race-baiting pablum. Once consensus is established we'll work from there,but to keep sneaking it back in is dirty pool. L0b0t 10:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Note From a Marylander:

Undoubtedly there are some Marylanders who would support this, since I know for a fact that there are indeed many "Southern" Marylanders. However, I would like to point out that the majority (or what I believe to be a majority) of Marylanders would either be aghast at such a suggestion or view it as deluded lunacy. Most Marylanders are more "Mid-Atlantic" or "Northern" in their sub-culture than southern, and even more than that we, or at least many of us, are more American than anything else.

I would like to request that this not be removed even if, in anyone's opinion it isn't neutral enough-- I simply cannot stand the thought that some might think this "League of the South" is known or popular to any degree in Maryland. Indeed, I possess a great deal of miscellaneous knowledge, and had never heard of this until I came upon it while reading about state flags. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.83.130.79 (talk • contribs). moved from article

i know plenty of LS members from "northern" or "border states." WillC 01:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
There are racists and ethnic nationalists to be found everywhere, but the LoS is still a fringe movement, even in the deep south.Verklempt 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
what is the point from either of you two? your opinion on the mission and membership of the LS has no place here. share facts, please. WillC 03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the burden of proof is on the positive assertion. How many LoS members and chapters are there outside of the confederate states? How many inside? I've never seen any evidence that this is more than a fringe movement, the SCV takeover notwithstanding.Verklempt 05:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
the last time i checked, several dozen states and 10k members. WillC 11:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, when I saw that the group claimed Maryland, I was like, "What?"

Do they seriously think that they would have any support at all? If the Southern states were hypothetically allowed to peacefully secede, Maryland would overwhelmingly choose to remain as a part of North.

I am also a Marylander, grew up there and everything, and have always considered myself a Northerner. I have lived in the Deep South and currently reside in Virginia, but I nonetheless feel an intense pride in my state. No matter where I am, no matter where I live, I will be a Northerner 'till the day I die.

Nice to meet some other people from Maryland!

[edit] Kinism

Several LOTS principals talk about "kinism" in their writings - how is "kinism" different from incest? And does anyone think "kinism" might account for the difficulties many southerns have in completing high school? Faveuncle 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Faveuncle

[edit] Making Article More Accurate on a Few Points

First, I’m not a partisan of the League of the South, but I do want to see conservative, secessionist, etc. groups treated fairly and NOT see individuals libeled by being associated with an allegedly racist group with NO references shown of their association. Therefore:

  • I think people should fill in [citation needed], especially where names are named. I’ll delete sections NOT cited soon otherwise. So get crackin.
  • In Politics and Controversy I deleted a couple references to broken links, where only POV excerpts made and/or no name of article even given. Plus not quoting their statements on racism is POV in my opinion. Obviously, people can include all the solidly sourced negative or positive or neutral info they want to.
  • References 5, 6, 7 - NOT CLEAR where they are from - previous article?? Please someone correct that.
  • Plus various grammar, punctuation, formatting errors still working on.

Carol Moore 00:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Since League of South getting a lot of attention in news right now, did a search on Michael Hill and there are much better sourced damning quotes from him that those in the article -- a broken link and an alleged tape which could be fabricated for all we know. Just encouraging someone else to change since I intend to add stuff about secession convention news stories and may run out of energy by time I finish.
Carol Moore 20:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
I saw that coverage too. It'd be great if we can imporve our own articles on LOS and Hill. Do what you can and I'll try to help too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a test to see if wiki can be balanced, i.e. using credible sources to show any wrong doing about someone without pushing an particular agenda. ;-) Carol Moore 02:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

It can be, but often is not. I entered the cite to the "alleged tape." It was being sold by the organization in question. If you can't find a copy, that says more about your research skills and your knowledge of this topic than it does about the tape's existence.Verklempt 23:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I linked the only source of allegations I could find (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=250 and http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=845#4) and people can judge them for selves and quote any they choose in the article. Better than a dead link and an alleged audio tape, as far as avoiding libelous statements on WIKI guidelines. People can sue SPLC if they get mad :-) Also latest news on LoS with relevant quote showing other side of controversy. Also just found another note of interest will ad with reference.

Carol Moore 18:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

[edit] This article has gone downhill

LOS is a highly controversial organization. It has been riven by internal factionalism over the issue of racism. It has seen its influence and membership decline as members and fellow travelers have defected to the Sons or dropped out of the movement altogether. None of this is mentioned in the current version, although it has been in previous versions. Indeed, we have seen a systematic weeding out of edits reflecting on the League's reputation, and a systematic weeding of critics. NPOV does not mean that criticism of the article's subject has to be muted or disappeared.Verklempt (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could look through the revision hsitory and find a better version from the past to restore. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote above: I linked the only source of allegations I could find (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=250 and http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=845#4) and people can judge them for selves and quote any they choose in the article.
There is lots of material to quote from in the SPLC report. Go there and quote 6 or 7 paragraphs from it if you want! (Though let's avoid "quote farm".) No one is stopping you. As for the tape, if more information is given like Tape called "Let's do bad things" distributed by LOS at Big Conference, June 1, 2001 then it is a more reliable sounding source. Going back to previous versions would just mess up a number of things that were cleaned up throughout the article over time by various people.
05:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

PS. I was just referring to the poorly sourced criticisms i took out couple months ago; i don't remember anything about the internal revisions - before I first saw the article I guess - but if you remember where they were, and they actually are sourced, then go get them, copy them and put them back where they belong. Then keep your eye on the article to see if they are removed and put them back. That's what has to be done if you care what happens to an article; general problem with wikipedia. Carol Moore 04:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Still no SPLC quotes on LOS?? Frankly, I'd have to critique their very poor sourcing (which would never pass wikipedia standards) before I would quote them, even if 2/3 of their dirt is actually be true. Plus I thought Will Beback might want to have that fun. Also, FYI, I happened in my travels to come across something controversial on one of their home page FAQs which some one might want to include here, but I'm too busy with bigger threats, like nuke weapons, to deal with the LOS/SPLC alley fight.

Carol Moore 03:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I do think when it comes to WP:Libel we should be careful and I found enough on Thomas Woods page and quick internet search to cast doubt about his current involvement. If critics want to have at LOS, I remind them of the above once again. I don't feel comfortable enough with SPLC sourcing to quote from them, and after a while will begin to think others don't either if no one adds any of their allegations.Carol Moore 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Woods solution works. Also, shouldn't members be up much further, like under or a part of history?? Plus need to delete extra space.Carol Moore 02:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

[edit] League of the South meeting

  • During the League of the South meeting directly following the secession convention, one attendee encouraged the league to reach out to leaders from the southern African-American community, beginning a process to reverse the "divide and conquer" strategy used so effectively by the Federal government during and since Reconstruction. He suggested that an independent south was in the best interest of both white and black southerners and their respective communities. He concluded by saying the sooner this was commonly understood, the sooner those of good will in both communities could truly work together for the establishment of a united, independent south and the restoration of a just and moral social order.

How can we verify this? Does LOS published minutes from its meetings? Was it covered by a newspaper or other reliable source? This appears to be an unsourced eyewtiness account, and if it is then it can't be used. It's not even clear why we'd devote a paragraph to what one person said in a meeting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Will here, see WP:NOR. · jersyko talk 01:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
i think you all have typecast the LS and don't want anything that might make them sound good. WillC (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Give us a source for the material and we can evaluate it. Right now we have nothing verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)